Tag Archives: Summary Judgment

In Toyota Motor Credit v. Director, Div. of Taxation, Docket No. 002021-2010 (Aug. 1, 2014), the New Jersey Tax Court held that Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (“TMCC”) was entitled to increase its tax basis in leased vehicles to the extent of prior year depreciation deductions that hadn’t produced a New Jersey tax benefit.

TMCC is a California corporation that operates a vehicle leasing business in New Jersey. In a typical lease transaction, an automotive dealer enters into a lease agreement with a customer for a Toyota vehicle. TMCC purchases the leased vehicle from the dealer, the dealer assigns the lease agreement to TMCC, and TMCC collects the lease payments from the customer. At the conclusion of the lease, TMCC sells the vehicle.

During periods prior to 2003, TMCC had depreciation deductions of $2.041 billion in excess of what was needed to reduce TMCC’s entire net income to zero. This gave TMCC a net operating loss of $2.041 billion prior to the 2003 tax year. For federal tax purposes, in 2003 and 2004, TMCC disposed of vehicles and recognized depreciation recovery gain of $484 million and $1.278 billion, respectively. TMCC could not use these losses for New Jersey Corporation Business Tax (“CBT”) purposes in 2003 and 2004 because the CBT prohibited loss carryovers for depreciation in 2003 and 2004.

TMCC initially reported gains for CBT purposes for 2003 and 2004 on the sale of leased vehicles because of its federal adjusted basis. Relying on the New Jersey Tax Court’s holding in Moroney v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 376 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005), TMCC amended its 2003 and 2004 CBT return to eliminate gains of $484 million and $1.278 billion, respectively, by increasing its basis in vehicles sold during those two years by the amount of depreciation that was unused for CBT purposes. TMCC argued that disallowing the basis adjustment for CBT purposes imposes a tax on phantom income.

Moroney involved individual taxpayers challenging New Jersey’s Gross Income Tax Act (“GIT”). In Moroney, the taxpayers sold rental properties. Despite taking federal depreciation deductions on the property during the course of ownership, the taxpayers used the properties’ purchase price as the basis for calculating gain under New Jersey law. The taxpayers took this position because the operating expenses exceeded rental income in each year the Moroneys owned the properties and the GIT Act prohibits loss carryforwards. The taxpayers prevailed and TMCC argued that the same principle should apply to its facts under the CBT.

The New Jersey Division of Taxation argued that Moroney did not apply in this case because the CBT Act, unlike the GIT Act, directly ties taxable income in New Jersey to federal taxable income. The GIT Act has “long been recognized as not mirroring federal statutes.”

The Court, instead, focused on the existing provisions of the CBT Act, which paralleled relevant statutes in the GIT Act. Specifically, the Court examined N.J.S.A. 54:10A-4(k) also imposes a tax on “net income,” including “profit gained through a sale . . . of capital assets.” Looking at the legislative intent, the Court found that the CBT Act “expresses the intent to tax only the gain a taxpayer realizes from the sale of property [and] permitting TMCC to employ a Moroney adjustment to the basis of its property would further this statutory objective.”

The Court also found in favor of TMCC regarding income apportionment under New Jersey’s Throw-Out Rule. The Throw-Out Rule, enacted as part of the Business Tax Reform Act of 2002, amended the receipts factor for CBT apportionment. It changed the income tax apportionment sales factor from a ratio of New Jersey receipts to total receipts (NJ receipts/total receipts) to a ratio of New Jersey receipts to taxed receipts (NJ receipts/taxed receipts). The rule excludes receipts from the denominator of the sales factor that would be assigned to a state or foreign country in which the taxpayer is not subject to tax.

The Director removed TMCC’s receipts from the denominator of the receipts factor for Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming, because TMCC did not pay tax in those jurisdictions. TMCC had lease receipts in Nevada and paid between $25 million and $56 million in tax from 2003 to 2006. TMCC also had significant receipts in South Dakota and Wyoming. The Director argued that the receipts from each state should be “thrown out” because the tax paid to Nevada was actually a sales tax and TMCC did not pay tax in South Dakota and Wyoming. The Court rejected the Director’s arguments. The Court held that “sufficient constitutional nexus is all that is required” to preclude the removal of TMCC’s receipts from the denominator of the receipts fraction in all three states.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the Tax Court’s decision that a New York City co-op owner, Ms. Alphonso, could not deduct casualty losses that occurred on grounds owned in common with other cooperative shareholders.

The Tax Court held that Ms. Alphonso could not take a deduction for a casualty loss because she did not hold a property interest in the damaged property. The damage in question occurred when a retaining wall along the common property of the cooperative apartment building collapsed. The co-op shareholders contributed to the necessary repairs and clean-up. Ms. Alphonso took a deduction of about $23,000 for her share of the repairs, claiming that it qualified as a casualty loss under under IRC §165(c)(3).

The Tax Court did not address the merits of the casualty loss claim. Rather, the Court ruled as a matter of law that Ms. Alphonso did not hold a “sufficient” property interest in the common area of the apartment building to qualify for the deduction.

The Second Circuit vacated the Tax Court holding that although Ms. Alphonso’s interest in the damaged common area was not exclusive with respect to her fellow tenant shareholders it was still a property right. Thus, the “property” element of section 165(c)(3) was satisfied. The Second Circuit remanded the case to the Tax Court for further proceedings on whether the claimed damages qualified as a casualty loss.

In a case that has been followed closely by many interested parties, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the taxpayers and the validity of their charitable contribution of an historical façade conservation easement in Kaufman v. Shulman. The 1st Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s legal ruling on partial summary judgment and remanded the matter for further findings on the questions of penalties and valuation.

The taxpayers in Kaufman owned an approximately 150 year-old row house in the historic district of South End in Boston. The home reflected mid-nineteenth century architecture and included a unique Venetian-Gothic style façade. In 2003, the taxpayers executed a “Preservation Restriction Agreement” donating an easement over the property to a qualified charitable organization for the purpose of protecting and preserving the historical features of the home. On the advice of the donee, the taxpayers obtained an appraisal of the contribution from an experienced appraiser who valued the easement at $220,800. The taxpayers took deductions on their 2003 and 2004 tax returns for the value of the donated easement, subject to the limits of IRC Sec. 170(b)(1)(E).

The property was subject to a mortgage when the taxpayers made the donation. The taxpayers obtained an agreement from the lender subordinating certain of the mortgage-holder’s rights in the property to the donee in accordance with the regulations governing the charitable donation of conservation easements. The agreement included several restrictive clauses, one of which became the focus of the Tax Court’s determination and the 1st Circuit’s ruling. That clause read as follows:

The Mortgagee/Lender and its assignees shall have a prior claim to all insurance proceeds as a result of any casualty, hazard or accident occurring to or about the Property and all proceeds of condemnation, and shall be entitled to same in preference to Grantee until the Mortgage is paid off and discharged, notwithstanding that the Mortgage is subordinate in priority to the [Preservation Restriction] Agreement.

Following an examination of their 2003 and 2004 returns, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency to the Kaufmans disallowing the deductions for the charitable contribution of the easement. The IRS maintained that the donation did not meet the regulatory requirements of Section 170(h). The taxpayers petitioned the U.S. Tax Court.

The Tax Court, in a division opinion by Judge Halpern, ruled for the IRS on a motion for partial summary judgment. Kaufman v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 182 (2010). The Tax Court held that the conservation easement as executed failed to satisfy the requirement of Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court’s position on summary judgment, as summarized by the First Circuit, was that

although the Kaufmans in the Preservation Restriction Agreement governing 19 Rutland Square granted the Trust an entitlement to a proportionate share of post-extinguishment proceeds, thus seemingly complying with the regulation, the lender agreement executed by Washington Mutual undercut this commitment–and so defeated the deduction–by stipulating that “[t]he Mortgagee/Lender and its assignees shall have a prior claim to all insurance proceeds . . . and all proceeds of condemnation, and shall be entitled to same in preference to Grantee until the Mortgage is paid off and discharged.”

Even though the Tax Court decided for the government “entirely” on the basis of Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.170A-14(g)(6), the Court of Appeals also addressed paragraphs (g)(1) (perpetuity), (g)(2) (remote events), and g(3) (subordination) of the regulation in its opinion. The First Circuit observed that the IRS’s arguments in support of the Tax Court’s decision under g(6) would “appear to doom practically all donations of easements, which is surely contrary to the purpose of Congress.” The appellate court continued that it “cannot find reasonable an impromptu reading [of a regulation] that is not compelled and would defeat the purpose of the statute, as we think is the case here.” So on the big issue in the case, whether the mortgage subordination clause that granted the lender a prior claim to insurance and condemnation proceeds defeated the deduction, the First Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s legal conclusion.

The First Circuit made clear that it did not rest its decision on either the application of paragraphs (g)(3), addressing the defeasance of the deduction by remote future events, or (g)(2) which the taxpayers argued would have upheld the subordination agreement regardless of the extinguishment provision. This caveat seems to preserve the Tax Court’s recent opinion in Mitchell v. Commissioner from the scope of this ruling.

The appellate panel also addressed the “in perpetuity” requirement of Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.170A-14(g)(1) and the language in the agreement stating that “nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit the [Trust’s] right to give its consent (e.g., to changes in the façade) or to abandon some or all of its rights hereunder.” The First Circuit noted its agreement with the D.C. Circuit who decided the same issue in Commissioner v. Simmons, 646 F.3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) and added that the question was not whether the paragraph was a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statute, Sec. 170(h)(5), but whether the IRS’s interpretation of the regulation was reasonable. The court concluded that the regulation did not support the IRS’s stringent view.

The Tax Court continues to define the limits on the charitable donation of conservation easements while the IRS maintains its frontal assault on these transactions. In Averyt v. Commissioner, the Tax Court considered respondent’s motion for summary judgment and petitioner’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the question of whether or not the timely recorded deed of conservation easement satisfied the substantiation requirements of IRC Sec. 170(f)(8).

IRC Sec. 170(f)(8) generally requires that a charitable contribution of $250 or more must be substantiated with a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee organization. A written acknowledgement must include

(i) the amount of cash and a description (but not value) of any property other than cash contributed; (ii) whether the donee organization provided any goods or services in consideration, in whole or in part, for any property; and (iii) a description and good faith estimate of the value of any goods or services.

The IRS argued that, as a matter of law, the taxpayers had not met the substantiation requirements of Section 170(f)(8). The taxpayers argued that the conservation deed was a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the charitable contribution that satisfied Section 170(f)(8).

The Commissioner relied on Schrimsher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-71, where the court held that the contribution of a conservation easement was not deductible because the taxpayers did not receive a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee organization. The taxpayers in Schrimsher relied on the conservation deed as evidence that the donee acknowledged the donation. The deed recited consideration of “the sum of TEN DOLLARS, plus other good and valuable consideration.” The Court held that the deed did not meet two of the three requirements of Section 170(f)(8) because it did not describe the property donated or provide a good faith estimate of its value.

The deed recorded in this case, however, recited consideration more particularly. The conservation easement in Averyt was granted “in consideration of the foregoing recitations and of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions hereinunder set forth.” The Court found that the deed language in this case compared favorably with the deed in Simmons v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-208, aff’d, 646 F.3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) where the Court held that the deed satisfied the Sec. 170(f)(8) substantiation requirements. Accordingly, the Court found that the deed in this case met all of the requirements of Section 170(f)(8) including the provision that no goods or services were received in exchange for the donation.

The Court granted petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Court also determined that material questions of fact remained with regard to the other issues in dispute, so a trial may be forthcoming to determine those facts.

The Tax Court rejected a pro se taxpayer’s deduction for the contribution of a facade easement on the government’s motion for summary judgment.

The court found in favor of respondent as a matter law based on its decision in Kaufman v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 182 (2010). Kaufman held that where the subordination agreement to the mortgagee under the easement does not grant the donee a priority interest in the distribution of proceeds upon involuntary conversion or foreclosure, then the easement fails the perpetuity requirement of Treas. Reg. Sec. 170A-14(g)(6). Kaufman was reheard on a motion for reconsideration with the same result, 136 T.C. No. 13, and currently is under appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a final note on this decision, the respondent conceded penalties in its motion for summary judgment, which would have required a trial to satisfy the government’s burden of proof, in order to meet the requirement for summary judgment under Tax Ct. R. 121 that no material facts are in dispute.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States ruling that the taxpayer failed to meet the necessary certification requirements to be eligible for the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and Welfare to Work (WtW) tax credit.

On a motion for partial summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio rules that intercompany transactions may be excluded from gross receipts when calculating the federal research tax credit under Section 41.